I don't see any compelling reason to change the name of this group at
this point...
We obviously could change the name if we wanted to, but it would
significant cost -- setting up a new mailing list, getting everyone
subscribed there, renaming all of the drafts (and thus losing the edit
trail), changing entries in the secretariat database, etc. Personally,
I haven't seen a justification for changing the name that would be worth
the effort. The name we have chosen is fairly general, I agree, but it
is the purpose of the charter to actually scope the work, not just the
WG name.
Margaret
Jari Arkko wrote:
Ted,
Huh? Why on earth is it hard? Strings are cheap.
On some previous WG creation exercise I was told that once the WG
creation process is in the IETF's database system, the WG acronym
cannot be changed, you can delete it and create a new one, but you
cannot the acronym. Of course, I could create a new one and ask it to
be brought to the right state... hopefully without having to re-do any
real-life steps, like announcements going out or the topic being on
the IESG telechat. This might work, but I'd have to investigate
further to ensure that it actually is possible. If it was the only
problem I would.
The other problem is that people may already recognize the name. And I
don't have a nice replacement acronym in mind. Multple Interfaces is a
very concrete description of the problem, even if its not the most
generic one. Multiple Attachments to Networks (MAN, but too close to
6MAN), Connections to Multiple Networks (CMN, a bit boring), etc. But
its too late in the day here to be creative. I'm sure someone sends
the coolest acronym in reply :-)
Bottom line: not impossible, but requires some effort.
Jari
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf